Hmm, that's a lot, and it's even deeper than it looks! It's interesting stuff, but I wonder if the author was annoyed at being told to sum it up.
Maybe meta: It's kinda too bad, in a lot of ways, that there's still this gifted/not dichotomy, this cultural meme we've labored under for multiple centuries now.
A few years back, for a while, I made hard-but-good money coaching parents in understanding the gifts of their children. Every single child has a set of gifts that are really valuable. One approach I used was designing a more theoretical gifted context around the child, tracking and tailoring it while observing them, and then relating those idea-space concepts back to the here and now.
The approach I preferred is way different from the traditional "gifted child" definition-based approach, by which data and professional levels of subjectivity are used for ranking. I still have a couple of friends from this world who are in their '40s and fighting over who has the higher IQ. Which is not to say it's all like that, but I do think the weaknesses of holding this weirdly polarizing view can and should be put behind us, even at this late point.
Even though my approach was different, I never realized until I started how hard parents will try to 1) discern just how _you_ view intellect and gifts, and 2) attempt from day zero to shoehorn their child into the extreme higher ends of that model. I had to develop a separate model for working with parents who had extreme views about gifted children. If you've ever worked in earnest to develop a very thoughtful model meant to help create the best outcomes possible, only to watch people try to game it over and over, you know what I mean.
One of the most important issues for most of the kids (IMO) was so much different though--it was definitely not this gifts/no gifts issue. It was closer to the perception of troubling relationship differentials among the people in their various life contexts. Kids and parents. The family at home. The kids and the teachers they don't like. And it's funny, it's not even a perception of hatred, anger, or abuse. It's more like the full spectrum. The person who can make you laugh and act in the now can be just as dangerous to your well-being as the person who pisses you off.
This stuff was causing so many of the kids pain, robbing them of sleep, and throwing them into a strangely irresistible open rebellion against family members, friends, and other people and school systems that were trying to help them. It could get so bad that there wasn't any room for learning anymore.
So in my view one of the easiest blockers that can prevent the "gifted effect" at all is really obvious--it's this troubling relationship differential issue. It will get in the way of everything, it will block powerful learning-stimulation signals and it will make psychological damage almost certain once it starts disturbing sleep.
Conversely when most of the contextual relations are at least pretty calming, or ideally even mutually-encouraging and open, _everybody_ starts looking gifted. Plus there's less of a reason to say, "I'm _more_ gifted," as a means of self-protection. This was always my favorite thing to see.
This “relationship differential” idea is intriguing but you described it in such vaguely general terms that I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Could you maybe give a concrete example?
Thanks & sure, and there are different ways you can describe those different effects of relating.
Let's take the current context. Here's a differential effect where you have politely asked me to clarify for you.
We can ask--"is that close to what we want? How does it benefit the parties involved? And if we call this information transfer with minimal emotional content, what if one expressed more emotional contents? Same effect or different somehow?"
So we start to use some basic transactional analysis to get at a higher level idea of the system of outcomes from the relationship.
We can also name the relationship by the type of effect. Over time the same groups of natural patterns will emerge in other relationships, so we can use the label as: A filter, a leverage point for teaching, etc.
That's what I'm referring to, the system of thinking about differentials in this way. It will naturally overlap somewhat with the existing concepts like "friendship" and "working relationship," etc. In fact, some people will cling to those terms because it's what they know--"well isn't this just a friendship?"
But by expressing the specifically new and unexplored contextual facets, we can bridge gaps in previous modes of thought about relating and solve problems that couldn't otherwise be solved under those more traditional concepts. So no, it's not just a friendship, any more than a computer running Photoshop is not just an adding machine; there are clear advantages for using additional terms as descriptors.
Also I should add that it's a high level system of perceptions, so I leave out lots of concrete details with intent. This is to help to fully claim the broader concept space as a "construction zone," because it's been my experience that getting into details too soon is a common mistake, and may even block in- and outflows- from areas of strategic leverage. For example I try to claim and use lots of metaphor. It's weird but it works.
In general, people are too concerned about detail at a cultural level and you can see this kind of "detail panic" (not referring to your comment, just in general) even at policymaking levels, which is the last place it should be a relevant concern. So culturally we clearly need more people who can sit in strategy, show how it can be interpreted as-is, and demonstrate how it naturally informs details over time. (Digression because of the details/example nature of your inquiry--anyway it's really fun stuff, thanks for asking)
I understand less than before. Originally I assumed "troubling relationship differentials" meant "their relationships struggle with the difference in status from them and people in power over them". Now you're describing someone asking you a question as a "differential effect" and saying "thinking about differentials" as a plain noun, a structure that only allows the mathematical definition of "differential" to fit for me.
In my work, "differentials" makes some sense because I do a lot of thinking in terms of specific groupings, which I guess in that SO link would fit next to classes. I am talking about differences but in more of a logic-derived, mechanistic way compared to more usual ways of thinking about people. This helps to apply thinking that is a bit more hands-off, which is useful for the same reason that DATA was useful in ST:TNG, I guess you can say. (Not that it's super unique to think that way; certainly lots of people are capable of logically thinking themselves into gigantic problems, like Michael Larson and _Press Your Luck_)
I wish I could really do it all justice here but HN comments probably just aren't the place, anyway.
Okay, so that was a bit stream-of-consciousness but it sounds like you’re saying that dysfunctional relationships are much more harmful to a gifted child’s (or any child’s) future prospects than any perceived lack of proper education. I could agree with that.
I would amend dysfunctional to any-functional. Like a really good friendship can do lasting damage to one's ability to level up in life. Plus we are looking at upsides too, like pro-whatever-function for dial-a-learning-experience granularity.
Lots of weird but true facts leading into the ahem, streams of consciousness. It goes really deep and winds around for very good reason. Inventing words you and I can share here is brainutationally expensive, concision with existing words often requires mutual expertise, so path-forging with general wording is made rough and ready; get a heavy machete.
Maybe meta: It's kinda too bad, in a lot of ways, that there's still this gifted/not dichotomy, this cultural meme we've labored under for multiple centuries now.
A few years back, for a while, I made hard-but-good money coaching parents in understanding the gifts of their children. Every single child has a set of gifts that are really valuable. One approach I used was designing a more theoretical gifted context around the child, tracking and tailoring it while observing them, and then relating those idea-space concepts back to the here and now.
The approach I preferred is way different from the traditional "gifted child" definition-based approach, by which data and professional levels of subjectivity are used for ranking. I still have a couple of friends from this world who are in their '40s and fighting over who has the higher IQ. Which is not to say it's all like that, but I do think the weaknesses of holding this weirdly polarizing view can and should be put behind us, even at this late point.
Even though my approach was different, I never realized until I started how hard parents will try to 1) discern just how _you_ view intellect and gifts, and 2) attempt from day zero to shoehorn their child into the extreme higher ends of that model. I had to develop a separate model for working with parents who had extreme views about gifted children. If you've ever worked in earnest to develop a very thoughtful model meant to help create the best outcomes possible, only to watch people try to game it over and over, you know what I mean.
One of the most important issues for most of the kids (IMO) was so much different though--it was definitely not this gifts/no gifts issue. It was closer to the perception of troubling relationship differentials among the people in their various life contexts. Kids and parents. The family at home. The kids and the teachers they don't like. And it's funny, it's not even a perception of hatred, anger, or abuse. It's more like the full spectrum. The person who can make you laugh and act in the now can be just as dangerous to your well-being as the person who pisses you off.
This stuff was causing so many of the kids pain, robbing them of sleep, and throwing them into a strangely irresistible open rebellion against family members, friends, and other people and school systems that were trying to help them. It could get so bad that there wasn't any room for learning anymore.
So in my view one of the easiest blockers that can prevent the "gifted effect" at all is really obvious--it's this troubling relationship differential issue. It will get in the way of everything, it will block powerful learning-stimulation signals and it will make psychological damage almost certain once it starts disturbing sleep.
Conversely when most of the contextual relations are at least pretty calming, or ideally even mutually-encouraging and open, _everybody_ starts looking gifted. Plus there's less of a reason to say, "I'm _more_ gifted," as a means of self-protection. This was always my favorite thing to see.